Curtis Miller 3/8/11 BIOL 1090 Taking Sides

My name is Curtis Miller. The topic I have chosen for the first Taking Sides assignment in the Spring 2011 semester is Issue 7: Should Doctors Prescribe Drugs Based on Race? 1. The Yes side of the issue, presented by Sally Satel, argues that a patients race can be an indicator of diseases that the patient could have greater risk for because many diseases and treatment responses cluster by race and ethnicity. 2. The No side of the issue, presented by Professors Gregory Michael Dorr and David Jones, claim that using race and ethnicity to select treatment options is risky. 3. One fact that the Yes side presents to support her claim is that genetic variation among humans tend to cluster by racial groups. Another fact that the Yes presents is the fact that certain racial groups respond to treatment differently than other racial groups. 4. One fact that the No side presents to support their claim is that the research of V-HeFT and A-HeFT that leads to the conclusion that African Americans respond to the drug differently is under skepticism. Another fact that the No side presents is that the drug BiDil failed economically. 5. One opinion that the Yes side holds is that its wrong to ignore a patients race when considering treatment. Another opinion is that profiling a patient based on race is a good method for making an educated guess on the patients genome. 6. One opinion that the No side holds is that by placing emphasis on the 0.1% genetic difference between humans, we run the risk of reintroducing racial biology. Another opinion is that racial biomedical research could conflict with efforts to develop an anti-racist system that is colorblind. 7. One misleading statement that the Yes side presents is that a lot can be inferred about a patient from race. I find this misleading because it seems to suggest that racial profiling in diagnosis could be a cure-all. 8. A misleading statement made by the No side presents is a quote of the Yes side article: When it comes to medicine, stereotyping often works. While the author did say this, the quote is hardly representative of her position. 9. I personally agree more with the Yes side. While the human population as a whole is very similar and race may be biologically meaningless, if medical differences are found to group by race, for whatever reason (biological or socio-economic), its appropriate to develop medicine that would be best for that population. African Americans, for example, have an

increased risk for sickle-cell anemia, for whatever reason. Therefore, treatment that addresses the disease, addressing any nuances that can be identified, is appropriate, and is different than social, political, or economic racism. 10. I feel that the author of the Yes side tended to be more empirical. The No side presented little empirical evidence that suggested that there are no differences that can be grouped by race that would render race-based medicine unjustifiable. The Yes side was more anecdotal than the No side, which is a fallacy on her part, but nonetheless it was more evidence than the No side. The No side also discusses BiDil and its failure, claiming that BiDil may not have been as race-favoring as earlier suggested and that studies that lead to its creation were tainted. Whether thats true or not, just because BiDil failed doesnt mean that the whole concept of race-based medicine is fallacious. 11. I feel that the No side may be biased in their arguments because they fear the potential impacts of racial medicine on society, a concern that is certainly valid. While I feel that racial medicine is appropriate, it cannot be allowed to get out of hand; that is, we cannot attribute every ailment or treatment to race.